They're making different arguments to different voters. Here's the rough text of the message volunteers were phonebanking on yesterday, hitting voters who, according to their data, are anti-tax and anti-spending.
Babies for Paul
I grabbed all the direct mail and fliers I could find in the Concord, NH, Ron Paul HQ, and I'll share this one to prove that Paul is never shy about playing the pro-life doctor card. (UPDATE: Yes, the message is more about the world President Paul would leave your children, but the back text mentions how many babies he's delivered. You're meant to read between the lines.)
They're making different arguments to different voters. Here's the rough text of the message volunteers were phonebanking on yesterday, hitting voters who, according to their data, are anti-tax and anti-spending.
They're making different arguments to different voters. Here's the rough text of the message volunteers were phonebanking on yesterday, hitting voters who, according to their data, are anti-tax and anti-spending.
Comments to "Babies for Paul":
Bingo | January 3, 2008, 5:00pm | #
David, are you sure that's the pro-life card? Seems more to me like a "think of the world you want to leave your children" cardCesar | January 3, 2008, 5:01pm | #
The fact that just simply going back to what federal spending was in 1998 would eliminate the need for the entire income tax blows my mind.What in God's name are they doing with our money?
Episiarch | January 3, 2008, 5:06pm | #
The fact that just simply going back to what federal spending was in 1998 would eliminate the need for the entire income tax blows my mind.Yeah, has this been verified? If so, consider my mind blown as well. However, it in no way surprises me.
robc | January 3, 2008, 5:09pm | #
The same kind of numbers came up when Mass had the ballot initiative to get rid of the state income tax. It would roll spending back 9 or 11 years. Something like that.So, my mind isnt blown.
crimethink | January 3, 2008, 5:11pm | #
Well, I'm not sure about Dr Paul's numbers, but expenditures --even without the wars and homeland security expenses--have massively increased during Bush's time in office, so I don't doubt that going back to 2000 spending levels would massively reduce the needed revenue.Kwix | January 3, 2008, 5:12pm | #
You know, I am all for "teh children" but that baby kind of creeps me out. He reminds me of the Crypt Keeper.Thia | January 3, 2008, 5:12pm | #
assuming that he is "playing the pro-life doctor card," so what? isn't this his position?! i don't agree with Paul on abortion (rather I agree with Rothbard that an unborn baby is a parasite that impinges on the self-ownership of the mother), but am more than willing to accept it, especially given that it fits very neatly with Paul's states-rights libertarian philosophy."They're making different arguments to different voters"
is this "news"? Dave, he's trying to *win*. if he compromises his principles, then call him on it. until then, sort it out.
The Washington Post (definitely not a pro-Paul publication) published figures that purported to show that the 1998 date is wrong. However, even the Post's figures show that the income tax could be eliminated by a spending reduction to early-90s levels. It is mind-boggling.
Do those figures add payroll and income taxes together? I understand the distinctions between the two, but at the same time both are deductions taken from your paycheck.
Doesn't look like a pro-life card to me. Looks like a "children are our future card." If it had been a picture of a fetus I'd agree.
Morat20 | January 3, 2008, 5:16pm | #
What in God's name are they doing with our money?Lately? The military and fighting wars, mostly. Last I checked, I think we spend more on the military than the entire rest of the world combined -- something like 10 times what China or any of our "real threats" does.
Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and our financial situation improves markedly. Revert to Clinton-era tax rates as well and the deficit goes away.
crimethink | January 3, 2008, 5:18pm | #
We need to see the back of the card, Weigal!Brett | January 3, 2008, 5:18pm | #
assuming that he is "playing the pro-life doctor card," so what? isn't this his position?! i don't agree with Paul on abortion (rather I agree with Rothbard that an unborn baby is a parasite that impinges on the self-ownership of the mother), but am more than willing to accept it, especially given that it fits very neatly with Paul's states-rights libertarian philosophy.Paging smacky.
Tim | January 3, 2008, 5:20pm | #
Try to stay focused there, Kwix:)David, you seem surprised that the Ron Paul campaign would have a communication strategy. Why? When you are expected to have a platform that covers American economics to Pakastan political consequences, why wouldn't you pare it down to a message targeted to folks who appreciate that particular slice of your message? Would you spend most of your time talking about sports with your wife or girlfriend? I'd think the relationship might suffer!
Blessings
crimethink | January 3, 2008, 5:20pm | #
What in God's name are they doing with our money?Not "In God's name", "in God We Trust".
creech | January 3, 2008, 5:21pm | #
"..are counting on you to vote for Ron Paul.And if you don't, then don't blame me when I'm grown up and vote to pull the plug on your bankrupting Medicare program and Santa Claus mentality."
robc | January 3, 2008, 5:24pm | #
Huh, I thought the baby was cute.Col Dubois | January 3, 2008, 5:24pm | #
Geez, how much corn syrup did they put in that baby's formula?Brett, i honestly don't know what a paging smacky is. maybe because i'm from England? do let me know..
Episiarch | January 3, 2008, 5:26pm | #
That baby is fucking terrifying.It reminds me of those baby-like, but evil, creatures in Galaxy Quest. I'm waiting for the kid to tear into another, wounded baby next to him.
MANUEL DOPAZO | January 3, 2008, 5:26pm | #
GET RID OF THE MILITARY ITS THAT SIMPLE. protect the country no one ois coming here to fight us get that thru your minds. the only people that benefit are raytheon northrop grumman haliburton. american is what it has become a mafia that points guns at other nations and threatens them with force if you dont obey. wake up people this what we are and the rest off the world know it do you. please lay off the oh he hates america stuff no i dont but i took the wood out from my eye a long time ago. we need a change its called ron paul.Cesar | January 3, 2008, 5:27pm | #
The Washington Post (definitely not a pro-Paul publication) published figures that purported to show that the 1998 date is wrong. However, even the Post's figures show that the income tax could be eliminated by a spending reduction to early-90s levels. It is mind-boggling.Well, things weren't collapsing around us in 1992, so I wonder why people always think libertarians are anarchist loons when they say "Hey, we should cut spending in half".
Revert to Clinton era tax rates
No thanks. No tax hikes, but cut spending. Republican keynesism can bankrupt a nation just as easily as Democratic Keynesism.
Brian Sorgatz | January 3, 2008, 5:27pm | #
America, fuck, yeah!MANUEL THE MILITARY IS ONLY LIKE 4-5% OF OVERALL SPENDING SO THAT WON"T DO THE TRICK GOT TO KILL THE SOCIAL PROGRAMS
From The Keystrokes of John Q. Public | January 3, 2008, 5:34pm | #
This is from a post I made earlier this week about the federal income tax proposal. Yes, it is true:A list of the federal budgets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Link listing income taxes and even separates income taxes from corporate taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
A link with pie charts discrediting the proposal while deceitfully including the corporate tax in the elimination:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html
And then some crazy ron paul supporter(why not love his enthusaism):
http://www.governmentdirt.com/ron_paul_on_taxes_getting_rid_of_income_taxes_dont_sound_so_irresponsible_after_you_read_this
Brett | January 3, 2008, 5:36pm | #
Thia, I was jokingly summoning H&R poster "smacky" for an abortion-related threadjack. In reality, I wouldn't wish that upon anybody. Nothing against smacky (or you, of course), it's just that the mere mention of abortion tends to result in endless/fruitless arguments, even amongst self-identifying libertarians.You're a RP supporter in England?
From The Keystrokes of John Q. Public | January 3, 2008, 5:40pm | #
Eliminating the income tax would put us exactly at the year 2000 budget. Just as Ron Paul's campaign as has been proposing all along!Charlie | January 3, 2008, 5:41pm | #
Episarch: "MANUEL THE MILITARY IS ONLY LIKE 4-5% OF OVERALL SPENDING SO THAT WON"T DO THE TRICK GOT TO KILL THE SOCIAL PROGRAMS"---
Actually, U.S. military spending is closer to half of the federal budget. Social welfare programs are a drop in the bucket compared to how much the United States spends on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, developing new bunker-busting nuclear weapons, maintaining a global empire of bases in over 130 countries, and supporting a domestic "homeland security" bureaucracy. Add in the amount of money that goes to the VA and the amount that will be required to take care of injured vets from Iraq and you're talking a whole lot of money -- roughly $1 trillion according to the Independent Institute's Robert Higgs (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941)
my apologies, Brett. i am fully behind RP, and reside in Manchester, England (i am a UK citizen). the editor of the US Guardian today finally found his balls and wrote an article (albeit, a profoundly ignorant article) article on Ron today. today of all days! anyhow, it is here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/01/minority_report.html
crimethink | January 3, 2008, 5:51pm | #
Nothing against smacky (or you, of course), it's just that the mere mention of abortion tends to result in endless/fruitless arguments, even amongst self-identifying libertarians.smacky?
I must be losing my touch.
John-David | January 3, 2008, 5:54pm | #
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the Iowa GOP is putting up the real-time results at http://www.iowagop.net/i remember my college days, and the abortion issue was, and still is, fascinating. my term paper "Abortion: a fetal mistake?" was very enjoyable to write. distinguishing Rothbard from Block is, i think, the most important libertarian debate to be had on this matter (NB: Rothbard assumes, for the sake of argument, that the baby is a human being from conception.) In any case, the issue is but a distraction from the Ron Paul bid for presidency. It's quite unbelievable that some at Reason don't do everything in their power to support him. either way, i think we can all agree that Cato ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Ken Shultz | January 3, 2008, 6:47pm | #
I bet there are a lot of pro-Lifers out there who appreciate being able to vote for a pro-Life candidate and not having to vote for a fanatic.Heinrick | January 3, 2008, 6:56pm | #
"Last I checked, I think we spend more on the military than the entire rest of the world combined"And that is having enemies that live in cave, what if we have another cold war.
Brandybuck | January 3, 2008, 7:07pm | #
Cute... baby... I... Must... resist... caucusing...prolefeed | January 3, 2008, 7:48pm | #
Actually, U.S. military spending is closer to half of the federal budget.Ummm, no, IIRC, it's about 1/5 military, 1/5 Social Security, 1/5 Medicare/Medicaid, 1/5 payments on national debt, and 1/5 everything else.
I'd provide the link, but my wife is getting antsy about her turn on the laptop.
Charlie | January 3, 2008, 8:31pm | #
Most estimates of military spending do not include the interest on the national debt that must be paid thanks to past military adventures. Nor do they include the cost of healthcare for veterans -- not exactly an insignificant amount.This article at LewRockwell.com I think does a good job examining the total U.S. military budget -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi59.html
And here is a useful chart showing that military spending is about 49% of federal outlays -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi59.html
Charlie | January 3, 2008, 8:32pm | #
Correct link for chart - http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htmbigbigslacker | January 3, 2008, 8:32pm | #
Anyone know if 16th amendment fraud issue has been investigated further than this:http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/theman.asp
(Hey, its sorta Ron Paul related)
Does posting this make me one of those domestic terrist thingies?
bigbigslacker | January 3, 2008, 8:39pm | #
Did my own brief research. Court reaction seems to be "don't be silly, go to jail right now"OK, I lied about doing "research". I looked on wiki.
Luke Johnson | January 3, 2008, 9:46pm | #
There was a baby with a Paul bumper sticker on its carrier tonight at the caucus. Weird to come back and see a hit & run about babies for Paul.lunchstealer | January 4, 2008, 12:46pm | #
This strikes me as a slightly more mom-and-apple-pie version of a one of those Domo-chasing-the-kitten bits."For every vote you cast for a statist, God kills a kitten. Please - think of the kittens!"